Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A proof for the existence of God?

  1. Apr 18, 2003 #1
    This argument 'evolved' from another thread of mine. I think it's an excellent argument to show that 'God' exists...

    How do you know that anything exists? Your whole understanding of existence is gleaned from five senses: sight; touch; taste; smell; hearing. To that, I would add that we have a sense of balance and of motion... which I think are related. Like AG, I think that we have 6 senses of physical existence.
    Anyway, the important point is that everything you know about (in the whole of existence) is coming via these senses only, to your reasoning/emotional mind.
    These sensory-experiences are definitely created by the mind itself. For example, there is no way that the universe knows what 'pain' is. Therefore, the very sense of this pain is evidence that at some-level, and somehow, the mind itself has ~painted this portrait~ of reality upon its awareness.
    And that's all we can know. We certainly cannot know that what we sense within ourselves is actually existant beyond the Mind which ~painted this picture~. Everyone has a sense of existence. His own existence, via his own senses. And the only thing that reason can confirm here, is that the awareness of each individual is centred within his own senses, which have been created by an aspect of the Mind itself (subconcious).
    We can further-conlude that our minds make judgements about their mind-created perceptions, using reason.
    Thus, our whole understanding of the universe/existence comes directly by reason, from a ~portrait~ painted by the Mind itself.
    We just cannot escape our own inner-existence - Mind-ful existence, whereby things are only known via attributes of the mind: senses and reason.
    We can also say that since the Mind creates sensory-awareness upon itself, that it must have knowledge of what it is trying to represent prior to 'sensing' it. Note too that our perceptions are ordered. The universe works to specific laws. Therefore, these sensory-experiences must reflect this apparent order (and they do, of course). Therefore, if the Mind is capable of creating 'awareness' of a universe even before it has 'sensed' this universe, we can only conclude that 'The Mind' had universal-knowledge before it created its own sensory-awareness of the universe. A hugely-significant conclusion this is too, because it shows that fundamentally, minds possessed universal-knowledge before those minds could ever come to 'sense' the order of the universe.

    Thus; this argument shows that Mind had universal-knowledge prior to sensing anything. It also shows that the Mind had artistic-creativity to the extent which all living things now sense reality.
    Since all living entities share the same Laws of Mind (the laws of physics), it naturally follows that all universal-awareness is centred within one Mind.
    Given that this Mind fulfils the requirements of omnipotence; omnipresence; and omniscience, I conclude that this is the Mind of God.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 18, 2003
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 18, 2003 #2
    Actually, you forget to mention that the world we perceive is actually there and not only in our mind. The reason we know that, is because we can communicate with others, compare the awareness we have about the world with our sensory perceptions, and conclude that the subjective senses we have about the world, must have been caused by an objective material world, that exists independend of our mind.
    One obvious conclusion you forget to draw (of course).

    And the other reasons you mention in other threads for the existence of God, have been proven to be based on flawed reasoning. You stated again and again that time must have had a begin, which was shown to be incorrect. Read the thread https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=958".
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
  4. Apr 18, 2003 #3
    From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1158" ...

    I hope this contributes ...
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
  5. Apr 18, 2003 #4
    Re: Re: A proof for the existence of God?

    That's the point of this thread. There's not one jot of evidence (rational or otherwise) which can prove the existence of a reality outside of our sensory-perception.
    That's not a reason. After all, we can communicate in dreams too. Does that mean our dreams exist outside the mind?
    Remember that I'm advocating many relative-perceptions of one existence within one mind. In that case, we would be able to communicate with one another, through that mind.
    There's no difference. Your awareness is your sensory-perceptions.
    I'm surprised you keep mentioning that, since I have shown that you reject the premise of finite-time merely because it infers God's existence - and not because that premise does not make sense, by itself.
    But I'd like to discuss the actual content of my argument, if you don't mind. This thing you mention is another issue altogether.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
  6. Apr 18, 2003 #5
    And to bring up another argument, why it is to me the most reasonable assumption to state that a material world does exist, and not just in our sensory perception of it, is that ultimately our mind is dependend on this material world. Just try to imagine the world absent of anything that exists, and you know why. See the thread https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=876"
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
  7. Apr 18, 2003 #6
    Re: Re: Re: A proof for the existence of God?

    I meant of course that you comare YOUR awareness of sensory perceptions with that of SOMEONE ELSE and communicate about this.
    If it seems we have the same perception about, let's say, a chair, we conclude that this perceptions is caused by the real existing chair, which exists outside of our perceptions and mind. What can be a more reasonable assumption then that?

    That's what I DID show you. You better read again my remarks I made about that. I even argued based on your own premise, that even that doesn't make sense, and comes down to absurdity.

    Actually, I think we should not, cause you simply reject all the proof we gave you that your argument is incorrect.

    What use is a debate then?
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2003
  8. Apr 18, 2003 #7
    And yet the only thing that allows us to observe anthing is the fact we're conscious, and that we are "seperate." Otherwise it would be an entirely "collective experience," which it is not. If it was, then we would probably be reading each other's minds and there wouldn't be much of a need to "learn anything," i.e., that we might "mimic" the behavior of others.

    It's really a matter of asking which came first. The essence? (or code). Or the form? ...
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
  9. Apr 18, 2003 #8
    Re: Re: Re: Re: A proof for the existence of God?

    I have presented an argument which analyses sensory-perception. Yet you insist on talking about time (again). Let's continue to have the debate about time in the relevant threads.
    If you think that anything I have said in my first post is incorrect, then highlight the part(s) you have a problem with and explain why they are wrong.
  10. Apr 18, 2003 #9
    Wether Mr Lifegazer assumes or not assumes there is a God, and wether he actually believes his statements about that or not, is of course of no interest for the discussions itself.

    The only thing interesting is to see that he uses wrong reasoning to come up with this Deity. First and foremost he rejects:

    1- That there exists a material world, in eternal motion that exists independend of our mind and awareness. That this must be the case follows from the fact that the reality of the material existence can be the only source of our experiences. Because not only we but also others, with which we are able to communicate and compare experiences with, experience the same reality. Based on that, there can only be two conclusions:
    a- either the other persons/minds also are a fixation of our own mind (this is the position taken by solipsisms). It would mean I was the only person in the world, all else is entirely within my own mind.
    b- or I have to conclude that the obvious reason for perceiving the same reality as anybody else, is that there exists an objetive material reality, independend of our mind and awareness.

    Because conclusion a- is obviously unreasonable, we conclude that b- is the right conclusion.

    2- The existing material world cannot have a beginning in time. Since this would imply the appearance of matter from nothing, and that motion arises out of no motion. This follows from our daily perceptions, and hundreds of years of scientific research. We don't want to have that thrown out of the window, just for enabling mythical things to have happened. For that (matter arising out of nothing), it can be stated, there is no evidence whatsoever.

    3- There is not, can not, never has been or will be an "inexisting" world, there is always something, the universe we live in. That means that the material existing world, doesn't have a begin or end.

    And these obvious facts he simply rejects for no other reason then to be able to come up with a Deity.

    Suppose however that the arguments above could be rejected based on evidence or based on logical judgements, and we would conclude that a Deity exist. As can be shown, this would not be very much helpfull to explain the world as it is.

    Argument 1.

    The argument LG uses here, to reject this argument, is to introduce (arbitrarily) a new entity, he calls "The Mind". We are all part of that entity. But apart from the appearent difference in terminology, what would this altogether change our position? Mind would then just denote the same thing as matter.

    Argument 2.

    The argument LG uses here is that the infinity of time is impossible. The point is of course that the concept of infinity is ultimately contradictionary. Bet let us assume that we would conclude time had a beginning.
    Then what was "before" or the cause of this beginning?
    We can only state one of the following:
    a- Nothing existed before time began. Which means matter and motion arise out of nothing. Which is something which needs explaining of course, since it defeats normal physical laws.
    b- A Deity existed before that, and created the world.
    This may sound helpful, but is not. The Deity just replaces the concept of nothing.

    Other alternatives are of course impossible (based on the premise time had a beginning)
    as for instance:
    c- The Deity existed for all of eternity, and created the world. This means, the Deity exists in time, which contradicts the fact that time had a beginning. This is just what we inititally refused, the infinite time concept again! Calling matter 'Deity' before a specific time, is not in the least a contribution to solving the issue!

    Argument 3.

    This argument LG has not even attempted to reject, but instead confirmend, cause he agrees on the fact that a "nothingness" can not and does not have existence, and therefore an existing world must always be the case, which exists in time and space.
    Nevertheless LG implicitly uses this concept, when he claims that time had a beginning. Which simply means that in his view, matter and motion came out of nothing.

    Therefore we can simply reject the idea of a Deity, cause it would in no way alter our concept of matter, neither solve any contradiction we DO INDEED meet when defining material existence. This contradiction of existence can not be removed, without creating new and more profound contradictions, so it simply needs to be incorporated into out concept of matter and of the world.
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2003
  11. Apr 18, 2003 #10
    Accourding to some of the things you have said in the other thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1158", you have done nothing except make "reasonable assumptions." Whereas if you "had to choose" (between materialism or spiritualism) ... That is not proof.

    On the other hand, if we all undestood that we derive our identities from God, then that would make each one of us unique individuals and validate this experience of "seperateness."

    It's like each plant of it's own cognizance so to speak, must acknowledge "the sun" as the grounds for it's being, or else perish ...
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
  12. Apr 18, 2003 #11
    Did I claim it was? What I see as what constitues sufficient proof, is stated in my previous post in this thread.

    As I see it, there is no God, and we ultimately derive out of matter in eternal motion. For the rest your statement could be or is applicable to the concept of matter, which is why we don't need the concept of God.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
  13. Apr 18, 2003 #12
    I hope you don't mind a little skeptical criticism, lifegazer. Here is my argument:

    (See the "Hurdles to the Mind hypothesis" thread (https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97&highlight=Hurdles+to+the+Mind+hypothesis) for the meaning of the "Hurdles" that I will mention)

    I think you're right, up to here - except perhaps for the "six senses" part, but that's a topic for a different thread.

    Now, wait a minute. Something had to impose the pain, didn't it? The mind may be the only thing that knows what pain is (even though that is debatable, given the fact that primitive life-forms can also feel pain), but why would it choose to impose "pain" on itself? If it were imposed from an external source, then it is obvious that the mind didn't choose pain, but your hypothesis doesn't allow for this (commonly held) explanation.

    How do you get this past Hurdle's 2, 3, and 4?

    How do you get knowledge, without awareness? How can I say that I know something, if I'm not aware of it's existence? It doesn't seem logical to me.

    Yes, I understand that you are refering to an omniscient Mind, that can know all things - and there's nothing wrong with believing in that - however, the Mind that "knows" these things, would have to be aware of these things first. You do not know something, before becoming aware of it's existence.

    This is incorrect. As Hurdle #3 points out, humans have had wrong assumptions about reality. They would never break out of these misconceptions, if one person's perception of reality was not different from everyone else's.
  14. Apr 18, 2003 #13
    What do you mean by sufficient proof? Can a woman be "sufficiently pregnant?" I don't think so. Thank God for that!
    As you see it? ...
  15. Apr 18, 2003 #14
    There's something else that bothers me, about the way you have worded your explanation of Mind hypothesis, lifegazer - which was otherwise worded very well, if I may say so. And that is that you first say that our minds produce our reality. That we can never prove that there exists anything outside of our own minds. And yet you are speaking of more than one person, when you say "minds". Furthermore, you then posit that reality is all the product of one Mind (God's), which would exist externally of our minds. Isn't that contradictory of saying that we can never prove the existence of something outside of our own minds?
  16. Apr 18, 2003 #15
    Ok, LG, let's have one more try then to show your whole assumption is dead wrong.

    I see a chair. I can feel it, touch it. etc. My conclusion is: the chair is realy there. Someone else comes in. He or she can also feel, touch and see the chair. After communicating our experiences, we conclude we had identical sensory perceptions about the chair. Now, I can state even more firmly: the chair is realy there.

    And this is of course not the only experience of a chair or other physical objects, but throughout the whole history of humaniry, we can come up with a huge amount of evidence for this kind of experiences. Almost uncountable numerous experiences.

    Although we know to have only limited abilities to experience the physical world, our normal reasoning concludes, and urges us to conclude (not concluding would, as I have show you in examples, be life threatening!!) that the physical world is realy there, and not just an "inner perception".

    Ok. Is that absolute proof? Absolute proof in my mind is impossible. But the proof is overwhelming, I would say. It fits our basic needs for understanding our world, it prevents us from doing things that would endanger our lives, and it enables us to utilize our environment for the benefit of us all.

    So far, we can not realy doubt this. If that would not be the case, then I would think the amount of traffic incidents would be enormously much higher, cause if in all honesty and subconsciously our human minds would realy think that there was no outside world, then why do we look around us to avoid incoming cars when crossing the streets, for instance?

    Our normal understanding therefore has to be that our inside perceptions reflect an outside world.

    Now, your statement is, that we have to fundamentally distrust this position we have in life. Cause, in your opinion, there is no "proof" that that realy is the case. Instead, it could just all be an illusion, a decpetion of our minds, that thinks there to be something, while in fact there isn't anything, just our "images" or "awarenesses" bot no real physical/material things that correspond to and are the source of that awarenesses.

    Thus far, however, considering all the facts which I include (all human behaviour over all of history, that is based on the "assumption" the material world is realy there, wether this is expressed as so, or not) I should state, that the "assumption" is stated rather firmly, on sufficient logical and empirical grounds.

    So, now you come with an argument that in fact, all my reasoning and conclusions which I drew, and which billions of other peoples drew throughout all of history, are most profoundly and absolutely wrong.

    Instead of "believing" in what they see, witness and experience, you ask them to drop that "biased" opinion, and tell them they were all wrong. Instead of the real existing world, they experience every day, and have to some extend knowledge about, you want them to "believe" that no such reality is in fact there. Instead of that, the only "real" thing that exits is this Deity, which no one had ever direct experience on.

    In other words, you ask people to give up for everything they are and know and experience, to distrust everything they know so far, and to replace this world view with a religious concept of a Deity.

    On the basis of what, Mr Lifegazer, are you entitled to decief so many people, and substitue their worldly views with a fixation of your own mind, you yourself most certainly and profoundly do not even believe in yourself?
  17. Apr 18, 2003 #16
    Of course the reality of Mr Lifegazer does not believe the fixations of his own mind, he is just very stubborn in accepting every day life logic, and likes his own ideas so much, he can not help him mentioning them and discussing them over and over again.

    Of course the assumption of an outside, objective reality, that is independend of our mind, is an unavoidable conclusion, but one that Mr Lifegazer hesitates to conform direclty, cause that would kill his concept of a Deity, which he likes so much. A Deity however, when consequently reasoned on the basis of his arguments, is not substantially different then the all day material reality we witness every day, and can't be of course.

    If we accept the material assumptions, then it can be concluded that the concept of a Deity is an unnecessary addition to reality, or in other words pure nonsense.
    His disacceptence of the basic premises, enables him to put forward his own premises (which he denies to proof on their own terms, for obvious reasons) but which ultimately lead to conclusions, that he previously rejected.

    So, in an indirect way, he puts forwards the proof (when toroughly and rigourlously reasoned about) of the assumptions, he wanted to disproof.
  18. Apr 18, 2003 #17


    User Avatar

    And there is not one jot of evidence otherwise. The fact you are posting shows that you do not believe in this particular conclusion. Rather, your life, our lives, are based on the assumption, however irrational, that this is not true. So, are you hypocritical? It seems you are.

    Well, I'll just fade into non-existence and leave you to your dreams.
  19. Apr 18, 2003 #18
    If in fact you can experience the chair for yourself, why do need somebody else to validate it? The "ultimate validation," and hence the "ultimate reality," rests with you. If "you" don't acknowledge for it yourself, then "you" are incapable of learning it.
  20. Apr 18, 2003 #19
    I can agree on that, but the opponent in this debate, Mr Lifegazer most profoundly rejects my conclusion.

    The "use" of the other observer, is to then conclude, based on the rejection of Mr Lifegaser, that this leads to the absurd viewpoint/ position of solipsism, which claims that only my own mind realy exists, and all other things, including the minds of others, are figments of my own mind.
  21. Apr 18, 2003 #20
    Heusdens is refering to the postulation (of lifegazer's) that the "chair" is really just a product of my mind; when I touch it, my mind is imposing a reality on my awareness, and the "chair" is not externally "there". Heusdens believes that the fact that someone else can validate the existence of the same "chair", proves that it must externally exist. I could (and lifegazer probably will) of course, argue that there may not really be another person, and you are really just asking your mind to re-validate the existence of that which it has already made you believe exists.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook